White Man: Why Are You Giving Away Your Country?

[Encyclopedia]

White scandinavian here. I don't give a **** about what the people immigrating here looks like.

This. Another white scandinavian here.

 

[KSaiyu]

So once again why would it?

You are saying, if you rapidly changed the demographics of the USA, you would not expect laws challenging freedom of speech?

You mean apart from the fact that's not how amendments work in the US?

I'd need an explanation of the failsafe to prevent a mass democratic movement on the basis of unchecked immigration overturning previous ammendments.

Well why would it matter? A country should reflect its population and a population can change in its views and opinions and its laws should reflect that, and it can change without factors like immigration.

It can yes. But there's a reason Government is pushing for restrictions on who can vote in the EU referendum[/quote]

Yeah, surely the genocide of the Armenians didn't have anything to do with the then-ongoing World War, the unfavorable results of the Balkan Wars for the Ottoman Empire, the revolution which had brought an end to religious rule in said Empire (and great turmoil), and the unsolved Armenian Question, amongst other things.

You are close to justifying the first holocaust of the 20th Century. Shameful attitude 👎

We already have a Bill of Rights (1689) that sits on top of the Magna Carta (albeit, as @Scaff alluded to, mostly uncodified as is the British way). The new BoR is a sop to make people think that withdrawing from our global human rights duty is somehow okay. You also seem to be confusing the European Human Rights Charter and the UN's UDHR, they're distinct and separable.

We have no "global human rights duty".

White scandinavian here. I don't give a **** about what the people immigrating here looks like.

The original comment was about preserving culture.

This. Another white scandinavian here.

Ok.....but that means what exactly? What research have you done on the product of unrestricted immigration.

 

[Liquid]

@KSaiyu You'd need those people in senior legislative and executive positions as well as elected to the houses before you get that. The American public can't just "vote" amendments away.

 

[KSaiyu]

@KSaiyu You'd need those people in senior legislative and executive positions as well as elected to the houses before you get that. The American public can't just "vote" amendments away.

And what stops those intent on changing laws in favour of other interests from gaining such positions....

You may remember that we had an Islamist become a member of the House of Lords....despite never being elected in any position.

 

[Pseudopod]

Never said I was in favor of unrestricted immigration. I don't care where people are immigrating from. What I care about is that they can support themselves, and that they follow the local laws to the same degree that those who already live here do (and we're far from perfect either).

Refugees are a different topic all together. You can't reasonably expect every refugee who's escaped various combinations of war, famine and persecution with perhaps things such as PTSD hanging over them to be able to support themselves as easily as someone who immigrated normally. Things may take more time in these cases, but I'm fine with that. I'm a patient person. Even if some of them turn out to be a net loss to society as a whole, the same can be said about 100% white scandinavians too.

 

[KSaiyu]

Never said I was in favor of unrestricted immigration. I don't care where people are immigrating from. What I care about is that they can support themselves, and that they follow the local laws to the same degree that those who already live here do (and we're far from perfect either).

Refugees are a different topic all together. You can't reasonably expect every refugee who's escaped various combinations of war, famine and persecution with perhaps things such as PTSD hanging over them to be able to support themselves as easily as someone who immigrated normally. Things may take more time in these cases, but I'm fine with that. I'm a patient person. Even if some of them turn out to be a net loss to society as a whole, the same can be said about 100% white scandinavians too.

Yes, that is a logical plan to preserve and enrich culture. Britain at the moment doesn't have this.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

@KSaiyu

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The people don't change the American constitution. The state and federal governments do that.

 

[KSaiyu]

I think we're getting lost here. I'm aware of the difference between our referendums and ammending the US Constitution. I'm talking about many, many years into the future if there was a complete cultural shift - what would stop this scenario happening.

EDIT: Ahh I can see the confusion, I shouldn't have said "mass democratic vote". That's changed to "movement".

 

[Exorcet]

There is huge room for discussion here. Humans invented things like religion in order to easily bypass what you said in that sentence.

Just for clarification, you're saying that people have invented ways to try and control other people? If so, that is something I would fight. It is distinct from immigration though.

What I wanted to say is: can the western world assure equal rights, work and welfare for all the people actually living here and all the people coming here without issues? Can western countries keep up with the rates, the numbers of new people each day arrive?

What happen when you add to much water to a glass? Some water get lost out of it.

Good question, but this is a separate issue from culture. States may have trouble accepting large influxes of people, but then this becomes a pressure to do something about the problem causing the people to move in the first place. I would not approach this problem by just shutting down borders immediately.

You are saying, if you rapidly changed the demographics of the USA, you would not expect laws challenging freedom of speech?

I wouldn't expect such a thing, though it's a possibility. This is another thing I would fight against though, another thing I wouldn't link with immigration. If people want to revoke free speech it's not an issue of foreign ideas, it's an issue of bad ideas.

 

[Scaff]

You are saying, if you rapidly changed the demographics of the USA, you would not expect laws challenging freedom of speech?

Not as an automatic given, no.

A very large number of assumptions would have to occur to come even close.

I'd need an explanation of the failsafe to prevent a mass democratic movement on the basis of unchecked immigration overturning previous ammendments.

I'd need an explanation of why you think that democratic change shouldn't be able to do so in the first place. I

It can yes. But there's a reason Government is pushing for restrictions on who can vote in the EU referendum

Silly me for thinking we live in a democracy.

You may remember that we had an Islamist become a member of the House of Lords....despite never being elected in any position.

Given that an Islamist by most common definition is one who wants to replace all forms of government and legal frameworks and replace them with one based in Islam that's quite a bold claim to make.

If on the other hand you have an issue with someone who is a Muslim getting into the house of lords, well don't worry, I think the Church of England still have a lock on that one with 26 automatic seats.

You also fail to mention, and its important context for those who don't know the UK, that no one is elected to the house of Lords. As such she is not an exception in that regard, but the norm.

 

[ryzno]

This is just a comment semi related to the subject. Please feel free to voice your opinion. I what to know, what is the your definition of, "White Man"?

 

[niky]

This is just a comment semi related to the subject. Please feel free to voice your opinion. I what to know, what is the your definition of, "White Man"?

Caucasian. Although the website from which the original article was pulled would limit that further to North European Caucasian, of fairer skin.

 

[ClydeYellow]

You are close to justifying the first holocaust of the 20th Century. Shameful attitude 👎

Wow, so trying to understand the real underlying causes of the Armenian genocide instead of going "HURR DURR MOSLEEMS" like good ol' HKS racer is justifying it? Are you ******g kidding me? Gee, I didn't know problems such as this were solved by ignorance. I thought it was actually this "let's dumb down everything" attitude that caused them in the first place.

We have no "global human rights duty".

Actually yes, you have.

Also, I see you generally assume that the UK or other European countries don't restrict immigration. That is not the case. As a matter of fact, restrictions on regular immigration are quite tight. On the other hand, you have people coming here on dinghies after escaping from famine (no, not the moderator), war, and other similar unpleasant situatios. Those are, by definition, refugees.

You may remember that we had an Islamist become a member of the House of Lords....despite never being elected in any position.

Not only you fail to mention that nobody is elected to the House of Lords but also...

In a public speech at Washington DC in 2013, Warsi stated, "there are parts of the world today where to be a Christian is to put your life in danger. From continent to continent, Christians are facing discrimination, ostracism, torture, even murder, simply for the faith they follow."

On immigration matters, Warsi declared that people who back the British National Party (BNP) may have a point: "They have some very legitimate views. People who say, 'we are concerned about crime and justice in our communities – we are concerned about immigration in our communities'".

Yeah, such Islamist things to say, aren't they?. And I thought you were a clever and well-meaning, if misguided, person... This shows you can't be both the former and the latter.

 

[KSaiyu]

Not as an automatic given, no.

A very large number of assumptions would have to occur to come even close.

I'm not sure I agree. The assumptions I've made have been based on precedent.

I'd need an explanation of why you think that democratic change shouldn't be able to do so in the first place.

They should (that's democracy), but we are talking about preserving culture (which we associated with respecting the Bill of Rights).

Silly me for thinking we live in a democracy.

At such a pivotal moment in our history we have to ensure the results are as fair as possible.

Given that an Islamist by most common definition is one who wants to replace all forms of government and legal frameworks and replace them with one based in Islam that's quite a bold claim to make.

If on the other hand you have an issue with someone who is a Muslim getting into the house of lords, well don't worry, I think the Church of England still have a lock on that one with 26 automatic seats.

You also fail to mention, and its important context for those who don't know the UK, that no one is elected to the house of Lords. As such she is not an exception in that regard, but the norm.

Sajid Javid or Sadiq Khan (someone who has received death threats over his support of a gay marriage Bill) are Muslim politicians. Sayeeda Warsi is a known Islamist

Wow, so trying to understand the real underlying causes of the Armenian genocide instead of going "HURR DURR MOSLEEMS" like good ol' HKS racer is justifying it? Are you ******g kidding me? Gee, I didn't know problems such as this were solved by ignorance. I thought it was actually this "let's dumb down everything" attitude that caused them in the first place.

What are you talking about. Are you going to be "trying to understand the real underlying causes" of The Holocuast for your next party trick?

Not only you fail to mention that nobody is elected to the House of Lords but also...

She's a politician. She has never been elected. The example is showing how she made it to the House of Lords whilst failing in her political career. Read my complete sentence before you go on playing the "KSaiyu is an Islamophobe" card.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure I agree. The assumptions I've made have been based on precedent.

In countries with a very different legal and political framework than the US, no precedent for this exists within the US.

They should (that's democracy), but we are talking about preserving culture (which we associated with respecting the Bill of Rights).

No you associated with respecting the bill of rights.

Culture can and will change, that can and will have an effect on the law within a country but culture and law are not one and the same and

At such a pivotal moment in our history we have to ensure the results are as fair as possible.

And how do you see that as occurring?

Sajid Javid or Sadiq Khan (someone who has received death threats over his support of a gay marriage Bill) are Muslim politicians. Sayeeda Warsi is a known Islamist

So a Tory paper runs a hatchet piece on her shortly after she leaves the government and is critical of them?

Stupid choices from a member of the government is not exact new, nor limited to any party, nor a direct indicator of a specific agenda.

What are you talking about. Are you going to be "trying to understand the real underlying causes" of The Holocuast for your next party trick?

Hold on, you don't get to decry people who try and close down discussion with claims of 'racism' and then do almost exactly the same thing.

She's a politician. She has never been elected. The example is showing how she made it to the House of Lords whilst failing in her political career.

As are the majority of the members of the house of Lords, once again not making her unusual at all.

The 26 automatic seats that a group have in the house of lords to specifically push a Christian agenda is OK by you however.

 

[KSaiyu]

In countries with a very different legal and political framework than the US, no precedent for this exists within the US.

Of course not, because they wouldn't be mad enough to allow it to occur.

No you associated with respecting the bill of rights.

Culture can and will change, that can and will have an effect on the law within a country but culture and law are not one and the same

Culture influences law (and vice versa to an extent).

And how do you see that as occurring?

Recent migrants from the EU will have a vested interest

So a Tory paper runs a hatchet piece on her shortly after she leaves the government and is critical of them?

Stupid choices from a member of the government is not exact new, nor limited to any party, nor a direct indicator of a specific agenda.

She really does have form for this. Everyone knows it.

Hold on, you don't get to decry people who try and close down discussion with claims of 'racism' and then do almost exactly the same thing.

Is this some parallel universe. The guy is coming up for justifications for a genocide

As are the majority of the members of the house of Lords, once again not making her unusual at all.

The 26 automatic seats that a group have in the house of lords to specifically push a Christian agenda is OK by you however.

No it's not OK - see my previous posts. Mrs Warsi was used as an example to show how people with an agenda against the State can reach positions of power.

 

[Scaff]

Of course not, because they wouldn't be mad enough to allow it to occur.

Then your point was?

Culture influences law (and vice versa to an extent).

Indeed, but that doesn't automatically mean that one will change the other or that if it does such change is bad.

Recent migrants from the EU will have a vested interest

I'm not a migrant from the EU and I have a vested interest, that aside as far as I'm concerned if you can vote in a general election you should be able to vote in this.

She really does have form for this. Everyone knows it.

Same source again, however that piece does also basically state that she doesn't appear to be doing this deliberately but out of naivity (they change that tact as soon as she left the government).

Is this some parallel universe. The guy is coming up for justifications for a genocide

No, he's saying that it may not simply be as simple as Muslims kill Christians because they aren't Muslims, you are then attempting to shut that down from any further discussion with your own version of 'racist'.

Discussing the causes of a genocide (and they are normally many) is not the same as justifying it.

No it's not OK - see my previous posts. Mrs Warsi was used as an example to show how people with an agenda against the State can reach positions of power.

Your previous posts described it as a "tradition of our country" and appeared to be in no hurry to change it.

You have also yet to show she has an agenda against the state rather than just being a naive fool.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Is this some parallel universe. The guy is coming up for justifications for a genocide

Again, trying to understand why something happened is justifying it? By your logic, trying to understand why people get cancer is saying "oh, well, all is fine and dandy".

I won't further waste my time discussing with you, since you seem uninterested in anything that doesn't prove your point of HURR DURR MOSLEEMS WILL KILL OUR CULTURE LIKE THEY KILL EVERYTHING THAT IS NICE, so you can avoid waisting yours by further quoting me without understand what I said.

 

[KSaiyu]

Then your point was?

The Bill of Rights' integrety is maintained by a preservation of culture. This is a product of America's immigration policy, amongst other variables.

I'm not a migrant from the EU and I have a vested interest, that aside as far as I'm concerned if you can vote in a general election you should be able to vote in this

Poor choice of words. You, as someone brought up in the UK have weighed up the pros and cons of our involvment in the EU. Recent migrants from the EU will largely not have. I suppose an analogy would be if the US Declaration of Independence was put out as a referendum, and in the years preceding it many thousands of migrants unswervingly loyal to Britain turned up and were eligible to vote.

Same source again, however that piece does also basically state that she doesn't appear to be doing this deliberately but out of naivity (they change that tact as soon as she left the government).

You wish to believe she naively happened into a plot of Islamist entryism...?

No, he's saying that it may not simply be as simple as Muslims kill Christians because they aren't Muslims, you are then attempting to shut that down from any further discussion with your own version of 'racist'.

Not quite, as I'll show....

Your previous posts described it as a "tradition of our country" and appeared to be in no hurry to change it.

You have also yet to show she has an agenda against the state rather than just being a naive fool.

I don't really know what else to say. Do you want a confession? I can only provide more links I guess

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...-was-over-promoted-incapable-and-incompetent/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4362418.ece

About the tradition - yes it is (a tradition), and yes it should be changed.

Again, trying to understand why something happened is justifying it? By your logic, trying to understand why people get cancer is saying "oh, well, all is fine and dandy".

I won't further waste my time discussing with you, since you seem uninterested in anything that doesn't prove your point of HURR DURR MOSLEEMS WILL KILL OUR CULTURE LIKE THEY KILL EVERYTHING THAT IS NICE, so you can avoid waisting yours by further quoting me without understand what I said.

Because this will surely go the way of the Islam thread, where you stopped replying after you were asked for the underlying cause behind Indo-Pakistani and Arab-Israeli relations.

I'll ask a simple question:

Should Turkey formally apologise for the genocide, and should they pay reparations?

 

[Scaff]

The Bill of Rights' integrety is maintained by a preservation of culture. This is a product of America's immigration policy, amongst other variables.

If that were the case American culture would have been static since it inception. Its not been and oddly enough the bill of Rights has fared more than well enough despite the huge cultural shifts in the US since it was put in place. Much of which has been down to wave after wave of immigration.

Seems that the Bill of Rights was written well enough to stand the shifting sands of cultural change and immigration, as such I find your fears and assumptions over its removal via those route to be rather unfounded.

Poor choice of words. You, as someone brought up in the UK have weighed up the pros and cons of our involvment in the EU. Recent migrants from the EU will largely not have. I suppose an analogy would be if the US Declaration of Independence was put out as a referendum, and in the years preceding it many thousands of migrants unswervingly loyal to Britain turned up and were eligible to vote.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at?

Did you miss the part in which I said that anyone who is eligible to vote in a UK general election should be eligible to vote over the EU?

You wish to believe she naively happened into a plot of Islamist entryism...?

I don't really know what else to say. Do you want a confession? I can only provide more links I guess

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...-was-over-promoted-incapable-and-incompetent/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4362418.ece

The first of your links only supports my point that she is much an idiot and naive over this as likely to have been the ringleader of some plot to bring down the UK and the second I have no intention of paying Murdock to read.

About the tradition - yes it is (a tradition), and yes it should be changed.

It should, but that still misses the point that you presented her an an unelected member of the Lords as if it were some kind of exception, its not.

Not quite, as I'll show....

Kind of the point.............................................................

 

[Danoff]

The Bill of Rights' integrety is maintained by a preservation of culture.

Nope, the truths are self-evident.

This is a product of America's immigration policy, amongst other variables.

America is an attractive place to immigrate to because of the self-evidence of human rights.

People come here because of the promise of freedom (a promise not well fulfilled), and that's exactly why people coming here don't put human rights in jeopardy. There is, of course, another element to it. See my signature for more details.

 

[KSaiyu]

If that were the case American culture would have been static since it inception. Its not been and oddly enough the bill of Rights has fared more than well enough despite the huge cultural shifts in the US since it was put in place. Much of which has been down to wave after wave of immigration.

Seems that the Bill of Rights was written well enough to stand the shifting sands of cultural change and immigration, as such I find your fears and assumptions over its removal via those route to be rather unfounded.

No. We are talking about protracted mass immigration on a scale America hasn't seen since its inception - enough to enforce a culture shift by virtue of the demographics. Wholly different.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at?

Did you miss the part in which I said that anyone who is eligible to vote in a UK general election should be eligible to vote over the EU?

Our general election voting rules restricts EU migrants from voting.

The first of your links only supports my point that she is much an idiot and naive over this as likely to have been the ringleader of some plot to bring down the UK and the second I have no intention of paying Murdock to read.

Why does she have to be a ringleader? An Islamist doesn't have to orchestrate events to be an Islamist.

It should, but that still misses the point that you presented her an an unelected member of the Lords as if it were some kind of exception, its not.

Again, the example is showing how someone who wishes to subvert the State was allowed in such a position of power.

Nope, the truths are self-evident.

They are, but the laws haven't faced the test of a massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration (at least by late 20th/21st century standards). Yes America was built by immigrants, but would the Bill of Rights and America as you know it survive if you opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced:

America is an attractive place to immigrate to because of the self-evidence of human rights.

People come here because of the promise of freedom (a promise not well fulfilled), and that's exactly why people coming here don't put human rights in jeopardy. There is, of course, another element to it. See my signature for more details.

If you were to open the southern border, do you think even half of the migrants would care about the founding principles of the US?

 

[Scaff]

No. We are talking about protracted mass immigration on a scale America hasn't seen since its inception - enough to enforce a culture shift by virtue of the demographics. Wholly different.

And something that isn't occurring or likely to occur, US immigration rates have been higher than the EU's for many years and are still higher than the EU average and on par with the UK's.

Our general election voting rules restricts EU migrants from voting.

I'm well aware of that, so as I said I'm not sure why used that analogy.

Why does she have to be a ringleader? An Islamist doesn't have to orchestrate events to be an Islamist.

Why can't she be a naive idiot?

Again, the example is showing how someone who wishes to subvert the State was allowed in such a position of power.

Now that's once again assuming that she is an Islamist with a direct goal of undermining the state by whatever means she can muster, and given the route she's tried so far I suspect she's actually an idiot.

They are, but the laws haven't faced the test of a massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration (at least by late 20th/21st century standards). Yes America was built by immigrants, but would the Bill of Rights and America as you know it survive if you opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced:

If you were to open the southern border, do you think even half of the migrants would care about the founding principles of the US?

You are aware that the net migration rate in the US is on a par with the UK's (2.45 vs 2.56) and higher than that of the EU as a whole (2.45 vs 2.22)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
http://www.indexmundi.com/european_union/net_migration_rate.html

As such they already have a migration rate that you seem to be suggesting would cause disaster, yet its not.

Not only that but 2.45 (as the US had in 2014) is a very low level in comparison to the past..


http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=27

...as such the US Bill of Rights has already survived much worse levels of net migration that you are saying would cause a forced change.

 

[Danoff]

They are, but the laws haven't faced the test of a massive culture shift predicated by sustained mass immigration (at least by late 20th/21st century standards). Yes America was built by immigrants, but would the Bill of Rights and America as you know it survive if you opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced:

Yes. The bill of rights is appealing to all. In fact, most of the people of mexico seem to understand and live by those principles better than Americans who have lived here forever. I'd say the bill of rights faces more danger from stereotypical Americans than it does from any immigrants. Immigrants understand the advantages better.

So, just to drive my point home as hard as I can... the bill of rights is LESS in danger when we have massive immigration. The principles of rights are catching on abroad where they're allowed rather than losing ground.

If you were to open the southern border, do you think even half of the migrants would care about the founding principles of the US?

Yes, intuitively they will. Maybe not in those words. What are the principles of the bill of rights that are most in jeopardy?

- Free speech

This is attacked by the religious right most.

- Right to bear arms

This is attacked by the liberal left most.

- Commerce clause

This is abused most by the liberal left.

- Search and Seizure

Most under attack by the government.

I'm not seeing the part where immigrants are the problem.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We have no "global human rights duty".

You've explained a number of times in other threads about your important role as a student in the NHS yet you've never once had a talk on the Valencia Declaration? That strikes me as odd and unlikely.

If you were to open the southern border, do you think even half of the migrants would care about the founding principles of the US?

It's closed at the moment, do you think all natural US citizens care about the founding principles of the US?

Your outlook doesn't explain my city, country...

But nor does yours however often you push your narrow-world-view. On behalf of Britain (my country) I'd beg you to please stop speaking for us, especially in front of the neighbours.

...or the world I live in:

Tempting.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Net migration into the US from 1967 to 2015:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/net-migration-wb-data.html

 

[Brend]

The most astounding thing about this article is that we are supposed to believe it holds any sort of water purely based on the fact its from someone:

• Not white
• A student, so that must mean they are knowledgeable.

Contray to some people's belief in here, there are thousands upon thousands of articles based on complete nonsense and fake referencing. Academic 'value' does not equal quality.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Because this will surely go the way of the Islam thread, where I ignored the explainations on the underlying causes provided by many people for the Indo-Pakistani and Arab-Israeli relations because they didn't fit with my view on the topic.

Here, FTFY. And yeah, that's exactly how it's going here. You decided that my point is that there hasn't been any Armenian genocide, and keep going and going and going like a daft sycophant - and my patience for your unrespectful, crooked behavior has worn thin. And to answer your preposterous question...

Should Turkey formally apologise for the genocide, and should they pay reparations?

Of course they effin' should.

 

[Keef]

I read the article once. That's enough to dismiss it as nonsense. The author's worldview is seriously awry.

The United States of America was founded upon the protection of life, liberty and the "pursuit of happiness". Simple as that.

It just so happens that the people who did the founding were white. But the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has absolutely nothing to do with race.

I'm amused that he began the article by stating that he's now a graduate student in history. Congrats. You've spent that much time in college and all the thinking you've done has led you to a ridiculous, bigoted, just plain wrong conclusion. You have learned nothing about the world or this country, my friend. You should probably leave college and live in the real world for a few years and sort these problems out yourself because you can't fit the big picture within a textbook or within the mind of a rotten tenured professor. Do not simply read or hear and regurgitate - you need to analyze real-world logical problems in order to understand how things actually work, how the should work, how they were designed to work, why they work or why they don't, etc. Just because you have an "education" doesn't mean you're intelligent - you could have been taught wrong the entire time.

 

[KSaiyu]

And something that isn't occurring or likely to occur, US immigration rates have been higher than the EU's for many years and are still higher than the EU average and on par with the UK's.

That is sustainable for them at this moment. We are talking decades away, with a climbing migration rate.

I'm well aware of that, so as I said I'm not sure why used that analogy.

I thought you were in favour of the EU proposal (everyone can vote)

Why can't she be a naive idiot?

Sure she can in a universe where Blatter knew nothing about the corruption in FIFA.

You are aware that the net migration rate in the US is on a par with the UK's (2.45 vs 2.56) and higher than that of the EU as a whole (2.45 vs 2.22)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
http://www.indexmundi.com/european_union/net_migration_rate.html

As such they already have a migration rate that you seem to be suggesting would cause disaster, yet its not.

...as such the US Bill of Rights has already survived much worse levels of net migration that you are saying would cause a forced change.

You are comparing rate for rate, surge for surge without addressing the facts. America chose this rate, and believes it is sustainable. It is free to reduce, or increase it should it choose to. Our differences, and the reason for my belief that our (higher) rate is unsustainable are:

- In terms of land mass we are slightly smaller than Oregon.
- We have a public health system in comparison to private.
- Schools here have to cater to a greater variety of cultural and linguistic needs.

You'll hopefully not forget I also said:
opened the southern border in such a way to produce a surge of immigration as we have experienced

Which is akin to our membership of the EU. Imagine the US was part of an "Americas Union". This involved most of the countries of North and South America. This Union then permitted free travel between all members, meaning the southern border of the US would effectively be opened. You would expect a surge on top of the surge America created for itself the past few decades, and the demographics of these migrants would be different to the current migrant population. It is this surge, and new rate that would be comparable. And yes, I believe you would see problems decades from now with such a continuous rate.

Yes. The bill of rights is appealing to all. In fact, most of the people of mexico seem to understand and live by those principles better than Americans who have lived here forever. I'd say the bill of rights faces more danger from stereotypical Americans than it does from any immigrants. Immigrants understand the advantages better.

So, just to drive my point home as hard as I can... the bill of rights is LESS in danger when we have massive immigration. The principles of rights are catching on abroad where they're allowed rather than losing ground.

Surely if this was true, Mexico would be similarly attractive to would be migrants. But I get your point as it relates to controlled immigration.

Yes, intuitively they will. Maybe not in those words. What are the principles of the bill of rights that are most in jeopardy?

I'm not seeing the part where immigrants are the problem.

Part of the problem.
Sweden further criminalised freedom of speech (extending to internet posts) on a law initiated by a White European
The leader of the opposition in the UK, another White European, weeks before our general election promised to criminalise Islamophobia

These were both to pander to migrant populations, or minorities (myself included). Could such laws arise outside of such pressures? Well hate laws, yes - Finland, a country with a far lower immigrant makeup criminalises hate speech, though not to the degree of Sweden. My point is these challenges usually arise from whatever the opposite of "community cohesion" is. And you can be guaranteed demographic shifts are the quickest route to this.

You've explained a number of times in other threads about your important role as a student in the NHS yet you've never once had a talk on the Valencia Declaration? That strikes me as odd and unlikely.

The problem with those laws is they frequently end up being abused by criminals. But that is for another thread if you want.

It's closed at the moment, do you think all natural US citizens care about the founding principles of the US?

No

But nor does yours however often you push your narrow-world-view. On behalf of Britain (my country) I'd beg you to please stop speaking for us, especially in front of the neighbours.

Explain what the map shows.

As for speaking for us I'd like a reduction in the racism we are seeing today. Believe it or not the biggest problem in my life isn't Islamism but Hindu nationalism. I am still not allowed to enter the house of my ex who's father believes blacks are the lowest of the low, and believe he will deny my invitation to dinner in a few weeks time. I also believe that my warnings about a shift in attitudes to Muslims will be the biggest human rights issue for the next few years:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/0...n-because-it-could-be-a-weapon_n_7480224.html

Here, FTFY. And yeah, that's exactly how it's going here. You decided that my point is that there hasn't been any Armenian genocide, and keep going and going and going like a daft sycophant - and my patience for your unrespectful, crooked behavior has worn thin. And to answer your preposterous question...
Of course they effin' should.

So you aren't an apologist (for which I apologise) but instead severely misguided. You amended my post showing that I ignored you, which is false. I had the last post in that thread which said:

Bringing up Arab Nationalism and ignoring religion is like bringing up Nazism and ignoring white supremacy

The fact is we can talk about the motives behind the Armenian genocide but you'll conveniently ignore the elephant in the room as to what drives these motives.